Cited by

The defendant next asserts that the trial court’s decision is clearly untenable or unreasonable because, here, the conflict with his appointed post- conviction attorney “was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense.” State v. Sweeney, 151 N.H. 666, 671 (2005).

We next address the defendant’s second argument, that the trial court erred by permitting the State to question him about a “different investigation,” in the interest of judicial economy because this issue may arise upon retrial.

Both Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to counsel and the right to self-representation.

State v. Sweeney, 151 N.H. 666, 677 (2005); Noucas, 165 N.H. at 158-59.

We address this issue in the interest of judicial economy because it may arise upon retrial.

“The decision whether to grant a motion for a bill of particulars is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion.” State v. Sweeney, 151 N.H. 666, 678 (2005).

2004) (“Evidence is properly excluded when the proponent fails to make an adequate offer of proof regarding the relevance or admissibility of the evidence.”); State v. Sweeney, 151 N.H. 666, 677 (2005) (proponent of hearsay statement has burden to demonstrate admissibility under applicable exception).

As we said in State v. Sweeney, 151 N.H. 666, 670 (2005), “To invoke the right to self-representation, a defendant need not recite some talismanic formula.” (Quotation omitted.)

To obtain funds for an expert, a defendant must demonstrate to the trial court that the expert is necessary to ensure effective preparation of his defense.

In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We must, however, address the defendant’s argument that the evidence presented to the trial court was insufficient to reach a guilty verdict because, if the evidence were insufficient, the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions would preclude a remand for a new trial.

State v. Sweeney, 151 N.H. 666, 673 (2005) (“[W]e must decide this issue because...

Where the evidence is insufficient to support a defendant’s conviction, the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the State and Federal Constitution prohibit a new trial, State v. Sweeney, 151 N.H. 666, 673 (2005); Tibbs, 457 U.S. at 41, because, “if the evidence was insufficient, the trial [court] should not have submitted the cause to the jury for its consideration, and, even on an improper submission, the jury should have acquitted,” 21 Am.

In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must prove that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Although we reverse the defendant’s conviction due to the erroneous admission of the bank records, we must decide this issue because, if the evidence were insufficient, the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions would preclude a remand for a new trial.

*516 “Both Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to self-representation and the right to counsel.” State v. Sweeney, 151 N.H. 666, 670 (2005); see also Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).